Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.153 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.153;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <CAO7tK2f_GVeDL5Qukx1k+3wTg5aVcY+z4W6JjB=hF1JGHzwwAw@mail.gmail.com> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fdDnOG5OSU5wJ=MQaDMroy3Ht45WjkMnCKBG1o9ofUTg@mail.gmail.com> <CACf3dPn1uunMicCRD8OgqVxLMSRpjMTjS-kB1Mrk3XMGZCkYcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2c62t+Q42aEoH16KTfviM527==ZyRboFdp0MbP=E4P6xA@mail.gmail.com> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2cx8jR+6qh82X7ZSPzQ3doNcvF54s6YLUARMYcXqT090g@mail.gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2ed4RwuWX6C2TragFDE=eqC-7DKY2AC8bMBfDZyHceC-Q@mail.gmail.com> <54364234.2020906@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2ch+_ppfXPEJqyu_Xa8N7tbcGtnx+Lk3_+jqhFOEw3CUw@mail.gmail.com> <54371623.8090608@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2fbXCiKhefYoZSXfUT-RU83MrJZ9L62QO8fZQdvgBss8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com>
From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5437C084.7060006@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <84505D84-7359-413F-A39F-99AB35351E93@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:07:30 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
X-Spam_bar: /

What is being used here is, as always in these cases, the sentence as a phy=
sical form.  And it can be used for the two things, though perhaps not in t=
he same circumstances.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:18, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 10/10/2014 01:49:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:=
and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>>    Okay, but you must see that in principle it's perfectly possible for =
"lo" to be referential yet for "broda" to be part of the claim. Referential=
ity doesn't entail the description not being claimed.
>>=20
>> Yes, I agree it's not a logical impossibility. But making "na ku zo'u
>> (bridi)" not always express the negation of the proposition that
>> "(bridi)" expresses makes the rules for the "na ku zo'u" operator
>> much more complicated than they need to be.
>=20
> To insist that "(bridi)" express the same proposition when bare and when =
in "operator (bridi)" is to insist that the syntax/logical form of bridi mu=
st be determined solely by their morphophonological structure and not rules=
, such as scope-leaping, that allow (carefully regulated) mismatches. Such =
an insistence fosters simplicity of rules, but is not very utilitarian. Loj=
ban already has mismatches for sure, e.g. "(na ku zo'u) ma broda".
>=20
> Take the present case as an example. Suppose you want to say "zo'e ge bro=
da gi poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u ke'a brodu". By the candidate rules I'm counte=
rposing to yours, that could simply be rendered as the morphophonologically=
 simpler "mi jinvi lo du'u lo broda cu brodu".
>=20
>> I have always interpreted "noi" as introducing a clause with
>> independent illocutionary force, yes.
>=20
> I had begun to formulate a response discussion the pros and cons of this =
from a design perspective, considering its utility, its systemic relationsh=
ip with other relative phrases, and so forth, but I gave up at the methodol=
ogical madness of inventing a language by starting with a fixed set of very=
 vaguely defined function words and then trying to decide precisely what th=
ey 'do mean' or 'should mean'. Instead I will content myself with simply es=
tablishing what you think things should mean.
>=20
>>    By my thinking, (1) consists of an illocutionary operator "I hereby a=
sk wh", with 'propositional content' "it is dinner time yet". So if (2) is =
"the reason for X is that I am hungry", X is not the propositional content =
of (1) but rather is (1) itself, i.e. the illocution. Can you reexplain whe=
re exactly you differ?
>>=20
>> Would you agree that "I ask whether it is dinner time yet" is being
>> used in two different ways, in one case to ask a question and in the
>> other case to describe the asking of a question?
>=20
> No, I wouldn't agree. I think it only asks a question and doesn't describ=
e the asking of a question, and that is of course therefore why I think tha=
t the asking of a question, rather than only the description of the asking =
of a question, can be argument of a predicate.
>=20
>> When it is used to refer to the asking of a question, it is an
>> argument of "... is the reason for ...", but when used to ask a
>> question, it is not. It just happens that we can conveniently use it
>> for both things at the same time.
>=20
> In "use it for both things at the same time", what is "it"? As I understa=
nd it, I'm saying that the logical form for the sentence contains only the =
illocution "I hereby ask whether", while you are saying it contains both th=
e illocution and a separate referential description of the illocution. But =
in that case, there is nothing that is being used for both things at the sa=
me time.
>=20
> --And.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.